<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 4/16/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Steve Underwood</b> <<a href="mailto:steveu@coppice.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">steveu@coppice.org
</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
These days, you can achieve far better quality than a normal phone call<br>at rates much lower than 64kbps.<br><br>The main quality issue with normal phone calls is they are limited to<br>4kHz bandwidth. This is insufficient for good quality speech. 8kHz
<br>bandwidth really improves things. It lets you distinguish things "f"<br>from "s", which is almost impossible on a normal phone line. In the</blockquote><div><br>This is one reason why good quality, in particular, continuous, voice recogition is nearly impossible over POTS.
Even with limited domains, at 8khz it's all billions of dollars of R&D can do just to consistently mis-recognize "T-birds Pizza" in Los Gatos as "P-Birds Pizza".<br><br>I note that this article on the wiki debunks the ilibc assumption for skype and goes into some depth:
<br><br>
<a href="http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/Wideband+VoIP">http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/Wideband+VoIP</a><br><br>I went looking at mattf's asterisk wideband branch - seems out of date, is it dead?<br><a href="http://svn.digium.com/view/asterisk/team/mattf/asterisk-wideband/">
http://svn.digium.com/view/asterisk/team/mattf/asterisk-wideband/</a><br><br>and some interesting old threads...<br><a href="http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/2005-June/013314.html">http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/2005-June/013314.html
</a><br><br></div></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Mike Taht<br>PostCards From the Bleeding Edge<br><a href="http://the-edge.blogspot.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://the-edge.blogspot.com
</a>